Leveraging the Housing Choice Voucher Program to Improve Housing Quality. April 27, 2016

Leveraging the Housing Choice Voucher Program to Improve Housing Quality April 27, 2016 1

Agenda Housing Choice Voucher Program Housing Stock - HCV Program Housing Quality Standards- HQS Fresno Housing Inspection Process Policy and Procedures Update Case Studies

Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) Program Formerly called Section 8 Approx. 13,000 total combined vouchers (City and County) Over 38,000 program participants Participants must be income-eligible Limit is approximately 30% Area Median Income or $24,300 for a family of four Participants pay roughly 30% of their monthly income toward rent Agency pays the balance directly to landlord in form of a HAP payment

HCV Housing S tock Average age of all units was 41 years (1973) Multi-family - 69% of the units Average age is 37 years (1977) Single-family - 31% of the units Average age is 51 years (1963)

Housing S tock by Zip Code Mean Year Built

Housing S tock by Zip Code - C ity Zip Code Pass Rate

Housing S tock by Zip Code City Zip Avg Age Avg Year Built Pass Rate Selma 93662 35 1979 72.5% Clovis 93612 38 1976 71.2% Fresno 93725 28 1986 67.5% Sanger 93657 34 1980 67.0% Fresno 93727 36 1978 64.9% Fresno 93722 27 1987 63.2% Fresno 93704 53 1961 59.7% Fresno 93706 45 1969 58.7% Fresno 93702 56 1958 58.0% Fresno 93728 66 1948 55.1% Fresno 93721 52 1962 54.7% Fresno 93701 59 1955 52.0%

Pass rates by Zip Code The six zip codes with the highest pass rates had an average pass rate of 67.7% The six zip codes with the lowest pass rates had an average pass rate of 56.4% ~11.3% difference in the six highest zip codes

Geographic Areas of Concern

Housing Quality Standards (HQS) are s et in place to ens ure that the as s is ted housing is decent, safe and sanitary. HQS s tandards apply to the building and premises, as well as the unit.

HUD provides guidance and forms

Types of Ins pections Initial/Move-in Annual Pass See you next year Fail Re-inspections and potential Abatement Special/Complaint Quality Control

Inspections Analysis HQS staff scheduled over 32,000 initial, annual and complaint inspections 60.2% of physical inspections passed Initial Inspections 5000 annually 67.7% passed, a 3% decrease from the 2013 Complaint Inspections - nearly 350 annually 26.4% of these inspections passed and the unit was HQS-complaint

Commonly Failed Items 11% of fails were a result of electrical hazards Inoperable electrical outlets, missing outlet cover plates, inoperable light switches, improperly grounded threeprong outlets 9% of fails were a result of poor floor conditions Damaged flooring and potential tripping hazards 9% of fails were a result of poor site and neighborhood conditions Poor yard, tree, gate, patio and shed conditions, lighting 8% of fails pertained to failed security items All accessible windows and doors accessible must be lockable 7% of fails were tied to poor tub or shower conditions

Abatement The unit has failed two inspections for ownerrelated items The owner is at risk of losing HAP $ These items may be cured, result in an abatement, or a contract cancellation A third inspection is required to clear the abatement If unit fails again, HAP contract will be cancelled and resident will be required to move

Common/Easily Cured Items

Common Abatement Reasons

May December 2015 Abatement Data May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Total Abatement 78 81 80 119 83 72 60 48 621 Status Passed HQS 60 61 64 92 59 44 32 32 434 Pass before abatement 39 37 18 20 28 24 20 20 206 Pass after abatement 21 14 46 72 31 20 12 12 228 Cancellations 18 20 16 27 24 28 19 16 168 HAP Abated $7,400 $10,000 $12,800 $24,200 $4,600 $6,500 $14,500 $9,800 $89,800 Approximately $90,000 in HAP was abated from May to December

Jan-Mar 2016 Abatement Data Jan Feb Mar Total Abatements 107 83 120 310 Status Passed HQS 76 67 94 237 Pass before abatement 23 20 28 71 Pass after abatement 53 47 66 166 Cancellations 31 16 26 73 HAP Abated $19,048 $15,246 $20,884 $55,178 Approximately $55,000 in HAP was abated from January through March 2016

Costs of Abatements Annual Costs for Abatements 1015 Abatements ~ 3 inspections/abatement ~3045 Inspections $33,400 Admin Expenses (Inspector salaries, scheduling + admin, fuel, maintenance) $106,575 Annual Admin Expenses (projected) Estimated Cost per Inspection: $35 $154,000 Annual HAP abated (projected)

Abatement Analysis Repeat Owners These 600+ abatements represent 450 different owners or landlords 81 owners had multiple abatements 8 of which had 5 or more abatements 3 of the 8 had 10 or more abatements 12 owners had multiple contract cancellations 2 of which had 5 or more contract cancellations 5 of the 81 owners are on our hot list

Impacts of Abatement Additional time for inspectors, accounting staff, HCV staff 2-3 inspections per occurrence on abatement list multiply the impact on both staff and residents If contract cancels, residents must move burdening residents Additional admin burden to staff due to processing of new move-in Lost admin fees during time between contracts

Potential Solutions Landlord Support and Training Program Underway and delivery anticipated to start in June (collaboration with CAA) Recovery of some financial losses through a waiver allowing us to charge fees for excessive inspections Waiver submitted; potential HUD rule change Additional landlord outreach to increase the number of quality housing options for residents New positions to support outreach Disallowance of landlords with repetitive issues Three landlords in disallowance process

Support for Residents Cancellations due to inspections failure have adverse impact on residents Resident concerns Funds to move not readily available Poor credit history limits options Moving is difficult and time consuming Approx ½ were more concerned w/criminal activity in area and wanted to relocate if possible Rent rates in North Fresno (and acceptance of voucher) limited mobility to this area Housing Navigator position developed and will be hired by the end of the week

Policy and Procedure Updates

Discretionary Owner Disapproval Applies to: owners, representatives, property management companies Can apply to individual properties Overview of Causes History of non-compliance with HQS History of failing to terminate tenancy where appropriate History of renting units that fail to meet State or local code Has not paid State or local real estate taxes, fines or assessments

From the Eyes of an Inspector

From the Eyes of an Inspector

Joint Inspections and Collaborations Fresno Housing collaborated with City Code Enforcement to better understand how the agencies can work together Code Enforcement provided a list of owners whose properties received the most calls for service These owners and properties were cross-referenced with FH data and collaborative quality review inspections were performed at these properties Also working with POP Officers in each of the four policing districts to pinpoint some key areas in need of attention Participate on Mayor s Code Enforcement Task Force Participate on the STOPP Team (Strike Team Overseeing problem Properties)

Inspection Results Examples of Owner Fails - Pests/Roaches; Eaves and overhang in front of units were in disrepair; A/C issues and electrical cord overhang, garbage disposal and faucet issues, refrigerator seal broken, door knob/locks loose, Refrigerator seal broken, Front door not weatherized, cutting hazard on counter top, security door in disrepair, caulk around toilet, open ground in kitchen outlet

Inspection Results Examples of Tenant Fails - Writing on walls, cable tripping hazard, dirty carpet, unsanitary shower, poor housekeeping

Common Deficiencies 5

Common Deficiencies 6

Common Deficiencies 7

Common Deficiencies 8

Common Deficiencies 9

Common Deficiencies 10

Case Studies

Scenario 1 - Owner Disallowance Two properties affected/same Owner: Property 1: Started with 11 Contracts out of 24 Units Currently 3 Active Contracts; will cancel soon Property 2: Started with 14 Contracts out of 60 Units 6 Contract Cancellations 8 Active Contracts in process of cancelling 12

Scenario 1 Owner Disallowance Vacant unit left unsecured garbage and debris Unpermitted balcony repair

Scenario 1 Owner Disallowance Raw sewage impacting common areas Raw sewage impacting common areas

Scenario 1 Owner Disallowance Car crash

Scenario 1 Owner Disallowance Improper balcony repair Exposed Wiring

Scenario 2 - No Owner Disallowance One Property affected HCV Staff and Management Observations Outreach to Code Enforcement Started with 5 Contracts out of 12 Units All cancelled or voluntarily moved 17

Scenario 2 - No Owner Disallowance Dead trees and broken fencing - Before

Scenario 2 - No Owner Disallowance Dead trees and broken fencing - After

Scenario 2 - No Owner Disallowance Trash and debris in alley Before After

Scenario 2 - No Owner Disallowance Dangling wires throughout complex Before After

Scenario 2 - No Owner Disallowance Deteriorating balconies Before After

23 Questions/Comments?

STOPP Update Collaboration with City Manager, Code, Police, Fire, Housing Authority, City Attorney Meet every Friday Approximately 30 properties on list with immediate focus on seven (7) with action by City Three of the seven had Section 8 contracts Two properties/owners have been disallowed by FH since team began One in process of being disallowed by FH Fresno Housing is working on an additional property/owner that has over 70 contracts and six properties and will be added to the STOPP team action list soon

Housing S tock by Zip Code City Zip Avg Age Avg Year Built Pass Rate Selma 93662 35 1979 72.5% Clovis 93612 38 1976 71.2% Fresno 93725 28 1986 67.5% Sanger 93657 34 1980 67.0% Fresno 93727 36 1978 64.9% Fresno 93722 27 1987 63.2% Fresno 93704 53 1961 59.7% Fresno 93706 45 1969 58.7% Fresno 93702 56 1958 58.0% Fresno 93728 66 1948 55.1% Fresno 93721 52 1962 54.7% Fresno 93701 59 1955 52.0%

Policy and Procedure Updates

Discretionary Owner Disapproval Applies to: owners, representatives, property management companies Can apply to individual properties Overview of Causes History of non-compliance with HQS History of failing to terminate tenancy where appropriate History of renting units that fail to meet State or local code Has not paid State or local real estate taxes, fines or assessments

Ongoing Process Improvement Training and alignment with Inspections Team Quality Assurance HQS Enforcement Specialist Daily property updates with entire inspections team Senior Inspectors assigned to special projects POP Officer or Code Enforcement Teams STOPP Team Geographic Area Focus Market Specialist Focus on appropriate rent comparisons and support landlord outreach efforts Housing Navigator Work with Leasing Team to support resident unit selection; support resident moves

Resident Support Improve initial briefings Develop neighborhood information sheets Monitor GoSection8 Implement Social Move Site??? Individual counseling sessions Housing Navigator Collaborate with Ed Corps to consider support for barriers like security deposits and credit reports

Landlord Communication and Support Implement Landlord Outreach efforts Assistant Manager, Housing Navigator, Market Specialist Collaboration with California Apartment Association (CAA) June Meeting Develop informational packet especially for landlords Create preventative maintenance training and offer to landlords (NAHRO members)